Bard PowerPICC Solo2 vs Cook Turbo-Ject: A Tale of Two PICCs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the complications experienced for 2 different brands of peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICC), Cook Turbo-Ject and the Bard PowerPICC Solo2. The rationale for this project revolved around concern that one of the PICCS in question had high rates of complications. METHODS: A prospective clinical trial was conducted after obtaining approval from the University of Saskatchewan Human Research Ethics Committee. All PICCs were implanted at the Royal University Hospital Medical Imaging Department by an interventional radiologist. Patient randomization was achieved by alternating the brand of PICC implanted in sequential patients. All the subjects were inpatients from a single surgical ward. Patients were excluded from the study if they had a known uncorrected coagulopathy, or if they were being treated for venous thrombosis. This project was financially supported by the Summer Student Research Fund, College of Medicine, University of Saskatchewan. RESULTS: A total of 53 PICCs (25 Bard and 28 Cook) were inserted over the study period. The mean PICC dwell time was 23.3 days for both the Bard and Cook PICCs, respectively. No statistically significant differences were detected in study group demographics, technical placement of the PICCs, or in the complications encountered. DISCUSSION: Both the Cook Turbo-Ject and the Bard PowerPicc Solo2 PICCs provided acceptable venous access for a wide variety of clinical indications.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".